- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19756 WP No. 9661 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 9661 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. M/S AMBA BHAVANI ASSOCIATES NO.507, 1ST FLOOR, 9TH MAIN BSK 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE. REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNERS MR. FAKEER NAGAPPA SAVANOOR AND MR. BABU N YELIGAR IT IS REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGER AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER SRI. GURU RAGHAVENDRA SAHAKARA BANK NIYAMITHA NO.15, SUBBARAMA CHETTY ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE-560 004. 2. THE ADMINISTRATOR SRI. GURU RAGHAVENDRA SAHAKARA BANK NIYAMITHA Digitally signed by PRAKASH N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19756 WP No. 9661 of 2025 NO.15, SUBBARAMA CHETTY ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE-560 004. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHESHWARA PRASAD., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS ON THE FILE RESPONDENTS IN RESPECT OF NOTICE BEARING NO. SGR/MS/L7/2271/2024-25 DTD 10.03.2025 AT ANNEXURE-J AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question the validity of the sale notice at Annexure-J. 2. This court during the pendency of the matter granted an interim order 09.04.2025 staying the sale notice subject to payment of 25% of the outstanding amount due. 3. Learned counsel for respondent-bank submits that though 25% of the amount due has been paid, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19756 WP No. 9661 of 2025 however, sale proceedings pursuant to the auction have reached an advanced stage. 4. It is further submitted that all contentions raised herein are matters that should have been raised by availing substantive remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. 5. Taking note of the scheme under the SARFAESI Act as well as the law laid down by the Apex Court, the question of considering the prayer sought for does not arise as the petitioner ought to have availed substantive remedy. 6. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off without any further adjudication taking note of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Union Bank of India v. Stayawati Tondon and Others reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110 and reiterated subsequently, which is settled position where specific procedure is provided for under the statute. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19756 WP No. 9661 of 2025 8. In light of petitioner having complied with the interim order of this court, it would meet the ends of justice by directing the respondent-bank not to take any precipitative steps for a period of two weeks from today. All contentions are kept open. Needless to state, time spent before this court may be raised in appropriate proceedings when the point of limitation arises. 9. The interim protection granted under this order is only to enable the petitioner to avail of his substantive remedy and must not be considered to be an order passed on the basis of adjudication on merits. Upon the lapse of the time stipulated, the protection granted would cease to operate and the authorities before whom petitioner may approach are to look at the matter afresh uninfluenced by the observations made herein. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE NP